Unit 7: Global Conflict
AP World History: Modern Topic 7 8:33 English narration · English + 中文 subtitles burned in
Chapters
Transcript
The organising question of this unit is not what happened in the wars.
本单元的核心问题 不是战争里发生了什么。
Campaigns and battles earn almost nothing on this exam.
战役与战斗在这场考试中 几乎得不到分。
The question is why the political order that existed in 1900 collapsed, and what replaced it.
问题是 1900 年存在的政治秩序 为什么崩溃， 以及取而代之的是什么。
Read every prompt in this unit as a version of that, and the material stops being a chronology and becomes an argument.
把本单元的每一道题 都读成这个问题的一个版本， 材料就不再是年表， 而成为一个论证。
At the start of the century the West dominated the global political order, and over the following decades both land-based and maritime empires gave way to new states.
本世纪初， 西方主导着全球政治秩序， 而在随后的几十年里， 陆基帝国与海洋帝国 都让位给了新的国家。
The CED names the mechanism as a combination of internal and external factors.
课程大纲把这一机制说成 内部因素与外部因素的结合。
The older land-based Ottoman, Russian and Qing empires collapsed under that combination — internal strain and pressure from outside at the same time.
较早的陆基帝国， 奥斯曼、俄国与清朝， 在这种结合下崩溃， 内部压力与外部压力同时作用。
And states around the world challenged the existing political and social order, the CED's named case being the Mexican Revolution, which arose from political and economic inequality.
而世界各地的国家 挑战既有的政治与社会秩序， 课程大纲点名的案例是墨西哥革命， 它源于政治与经济上的不平等。
The examinable habit here is pairing.
这里可考的习惯是配对。
An answer that gives only internal weakness, or only external pressure, has given half the explanation.
只给内部虚弱， 或只给外部压力的答案， 只给出了一半的解释。
The CED compresses the causes of the First World War into one statement, and every element earns marks: imperialist expansion and competition for resources; territorial and regional conflicts; a flawed alliance system; and intense nationalism.
课程大纲把第一次世界大战的原因 压缩成一句话， 其中每一项都能得分： 帝国主义扩张与资源竞争； 领土与地区冲突； 有缺陷的结盟体系； 以及极端民族主义。
But do not stop at the list, because the shape of the claim is where the real mark is.
但不要止步于这份清单， 因为真正的得分点 在于这一主张的形状。
The first three supply the tension.
前三项提供了张力。
The alliance system supplies the escalation.
结盟体系提供了升级。
That distinction — between what made conflict likely and what made it global — is the single most useful thing to hold from this topic, and it answers most causation questions on the war by itself.
这一区分， 也就是什么让冲突变得可能， 与什么让它变成全球性的， 是本主题中最有用的一点， 它本身就能回答 关于这场战争的多数因果题。
Conducting World War I, first.
先说第一次世界大战是怎么打的。
World War One was the first total war, and the CED lists the methods governments used, which are not only military.
第一次世界大战是第一场总体战， 课程大纲列出了各国政府使用的方法， 而它们不只是军事上的。
Political propaganda, art and media to sustain public support.
政治宣传、艺术与媒体， 用以维持公众支持。
Intensified forms of nationalism.
强化形式的民族主义。
Mobilisation of economies and populations — conscription, war production, the direction of labour.
经济与人口的动员， 征兵、战时生产、劳动力的调配。
And the recruitment and use of colonial subjects as soldiers and labourers.
以及征召并使用殖民地臣民 充当士兵与劳工。
Learn those four as a checklist, because you will use it twice: once for each war, and the comparison then writes itself.
把这四项作为一份清单来记， 因为你要用两次： 两场战争各用一次， 比较就会自己写出来。
Alongside it, new military technology led to increased levels of wartime casualties.
与此并行的是， 新的军事技术 导致战时伤亡水平上升。
The technology point and the mobilisation point are two separate marks, so give both.
技术这一点与动员这一点 是两个独立的得分点， 两者都要给出。
Then the economy in the interwar period.
然后是两次大战之间的经济。
Following the First World War and the onset of the Great Depression, governments began to take a more active role in economic life.
在第一次世界大战之后 与大萧条开始之时， 各国政府开始在经济生活中 扮演更积极的角色。
That is the general claim, and by itself it is worth very little, because it is true almost everywhere.
这是一般性的说法， 单独看几乎不值分， 因为它几乎在各地都成立。
The CED then supplies contrasting cases of how far that role went.
课程大纲随后提供了 关于这一角色走了多远的对比案例。
In the Soviet Union, the government controlled the national economy through the Five Year Plans, implementing repressive policies at significant cost to the population while achieving rapid industrialisation.
在苏联，政府通过五年计划 控制国民经济， 推行压制性政策， 以巨大的人口代价 实现了快速工业化。
So the pattern that makes this comparable: economic crisis increased the state's claim on the economy everywhere, but the extent differed enormously — from regulation and public works at one end to full state control at the other.
因此，使之可比较的模式是： 经济危机在各地 都提高了国家对经济的支配主张， 但程度差别巨大， 一端是监管与公共工程， 另一端是完全的国家控制。
Say how far a state went, not just that it intervened.
要说出一个国家走了多远， 而不只是说它进行了干预。
And conducting World War II.
再说第二次世界大战是怎么打的。
The second war was also a total war, and governments used the same broad categories of method: propaganda, art and media, intensified nationalism, and the mobilisation of whole economies and populations, colonial subjects included.
第二次大战同样是一场总体战，各国政府使用了同样几大类手段： 宣传、艺术与媒体、被强化的民族主义， 以及对整个经济和全体人口的动员，殖民地民众也包括在内。
What changed was the technology and its scale.
变化的是技术和它的规模。
New military technology and new tactics — including the atomic bomb, fire-bombing, and the waging of total war — led to far higher casualties, and a far higher proportion of them were civilian deaths.
新的军事技术和新的战术——包括原子弹、燃烧弹轰炸，以及总体战的打法—— 带来了高得多的伤亡，而其中平民死亡所占的比例也高得多。
So the examinable comparison is this: methods largely similar, scale and technology different.
所以可考的比较是这样：手段大体相似，规模与技术不同。
An answer that says only that both were total wars has not compared them; one that says only that the second was more destructive has not explained why.
只说「两场都是总体战」的答案并没有做比较； 只说「第二次更具毁灭性」的答案没有解释原因。
Between the wars, Western and Japanese imperial states predominantly maintained control over colonial holdings, and in some cases gained new territory.
两次大战之间， 西方与日本的帝国主义国家 基本上保持了对殖民地的控制， 有些情况下还获得了新领土。
The hopes for self- determination raised by the peace settlement were largely not met for colonised peoples — and that is the bridge into Unit 8, so name the link.
和约所激起的民族自决希望 对被殖民民族而言基本未能实现， 而这正是通往第八单元的桥梁， 所以要说出这一联系。
Then the causes of the second war, again as a compound: the unsustainable peace settlement after the First World War, the global economic crisis produced by the Great Depression, continued imperialist practices, and the rise of fascism and extreme nationalism.
接着是第二次大战的原因， 同样是复合的： 一战之后难以维持的和约、 大萧条造成的全球经济危机、 持续的帝国主义行径， 以及法西斯主义与极端民族主义的兴起。
Now compare the two lists and a real pattern appears.
现在把两份清单对照， 一个真正的模式就出现了。
Economic pressure and nationalism are common to both.
经济压力与民族主义为两者共有。
The specific additions in 1939 are the failed settlement and the new ideological regimes.
1939 年特有的新增项 是失败的和约与新的意识形态政权。
A comparison question wants exactly that structure: shared causes named, then the differences.
比较题要的正是这一结构： 先说出共有的原因，再说差别。
The CED asks for causes and consequences of mass atrocities from 1900 to the present.
课程大纲要求说明 1900 年至今大规模暴行的原因与后果。
Its framing is that the rise of extremist groups in power led to the attempted destruction of specific populations, and it names the Holocaust — the Nazi killing of Jewish people — as the principal case, alongside other twentieth-century genocides and mass killings.
它的框架是， 掌权的极端主义团体的兴起 导致对特定人群的灭绝企图， 并点名犹太人大屠杀， 即纳粹对犹太人的屠杀， 作为主要案例， 同时还有二十世纪其他的种族灭绝 与大规模屠杀。
Handled as history, the examinable content is the pattern.
作为历史来处理， 可考的内容是那个模式。
An extremist regime takes state power.
极端主义政权夺取国家权力。
It defines a population as outside the political community.
它把某一人群 界定在政治共同体之外。
And it uses the machinery of the modern state — bureaucracy, transport, communication — to carry out destruction on a scale earlier regimes could not achieve.
并利用现代国家的机器， 官僚体系、交通、通信， 以此前政权无法达到的规模 实施毁灭。
That last step connects this topic to the technology theme running through the whole unit.
最后这一步 把本主题与贯穿整个单元的 技术主题连接了起来。
One rule before that: a similarity claim must be evidenced on both sides — evidence from one war only cannot demonstrate a similarity.
在那之前先记一条规则：相似性的主张必须两边都有证据—— 只举一场战争的证据，证明不了相似。
The unit's reasoning skill is causation, and specifically the relative significance of causes.
本单元的推理技能是因果， 具体说是原因的相对重要性。
That word "relative" is the whole task.
"相对"这个词就是全部任务。
You are not listing causes; you are ranking them and defending the ranking.
你不是在罗列原因， 而是在给它们排序并为排序辩护。
A list of causes with no argument about which mattered most does not answer the question asked.
罗列一堆原因 却不论证哪个最重要， 并没有回答被问的问题。
And one more rule that decides comparison marks in this unit: a similarity or a difference must carry evidence on both sides.
还有一条规则 决定了本单元的比较分数： 相似或差异 必须在两边都带有证据。
Both wars were total wars in which governments mobilised entire economies and populations; in both, states used propaganda to sustain support, directed industry toward war material, and recruited from their colonies.
两场战争都是总体战， 政府动员了整个经济与全部人口； 在两场战争中， 国家都使用宣传维持支持， 把工业导向战争物资， 并从殖民地征召人员。
Evidence from one war only cannot demonstrate a similarity.
只有一场战争的证据 无法证明一处相似。
Five exam moves.
考试里的五个动作。
First, pair internal strain with external pressure for the Ottoman, Russian and Qing collapses — one alone is half an answer.
第一，奥斯曼、俄国与清朝的崩溃，要把内部压力与外部压力配对——只写一边是半个答案。
Second, separate what made the First World War likely from what made it global: the alliance system is the escalation.
第二，把什么让一战变得可能与什么让它变成全球性的分开：结盟体系才是升级。
Third, total war is a four-item checklist you use for both wars, so the comparison writes itself.
第三，总体战是一份四项清单，两场战争都用，比较就会自己写出来。
Fourth, the interwar economy is a spectrum of state involvement: say how far a state went.
第四，两战之间的经济是国家介入的谱系：要说出一个国家走了多远。
Fifth, relative significance means rank and justify, and a comparison needs evidence on both sides.
第五，相对重要性意味着排序并论证，而比较需要两边都有证据。
Five things to carry out.
带走五件事。
First, pair internal strain with external pressure for every empire that collapsed.
第一，对每一个崩溃的帝国， 都把内部压力与外部压力配成一对。
Second, separate what made the First World War likely from what made it global.
第二，把什么让一战变得可能 与什么让它变成全球性的区分开。
Third, total war is a four-item checklist you use twice.
第三，总体战是一份四项清单， 你要用两次。
Fourth, the interwar economy is a spectrum — say how far the state went.
第四，两战之间的经济是一个谱系， 要说出国家走了多远。
Fifth, relative significance means rank and justify, and every comparison needs evidence on both sides.
第五，相对重要性意味着排序并论证， 而每一处比较 都需要两边都有证据。